However, Adobe have, again as I have already said, bent over backwards to enable that 10% to keep using their current software even with new cameras (no small expenditure in itself), maintain perpetual licensing with Lightroom, and make this new photographer orientated subscription model at prices any keen hobbyist could easily afford.

I'm not sure how they're bending over backwards. I bought a copy of CS5 Extended shortly before the CS6 release. CR2 files from my 6D don't work on my version of Photoshop.

It depends how "shortly" before CS6 was released, normally Adobe offer a recent purchaser discount to upgrade. But once a version of pretty much any companies software is superseded support stops, Adobe are not unusual in that regard it is the industry norm, they didn't know when you were going to buy a new camera after all. Having said that Adobe did write a fully supported free program that allows you use CS5 and your 6D files, name me another software company that does that.

Also, if you don't like the idea or price of upgrading to CS6 or the "hassle" of the free DNG convertor then get Lightroom 5 for $99, this gives you the very latest ACR, the version above CS6, the CC version, you can then "open in CS5" and "render using Lightroom" and open every camera Adobe currently support in your legacy CS5. $99 gets you the best ACR leveraged against the power of PS.

Adobe give us photographers so many legal ways of working around any "restrictions" or "limitations" they are accused of putting in our way,they can't all be by accident, I believe they are bending over backwards to keep stuff accessible to that 10%, we are just to obtuse to see it, too often we sound like belligerent children being asked to simmer down after a tantrum in a supermarket or restaurant.

« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 01:31:35 PM by privatebydesign »

Logged

Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

However, Adobe have, again as I have already said, bent over backwards to enable that 10% to keep using their current software even with new cameras (no small expenditure in itself), maintain perpetual licensing with Lightroom, and make this new photographer orientated subscription model at prices any keen hobbyist could easily afford.

I'm not sure how they're bending over backwards. I bought a copy of CS5 Extended shortly before the CS6 release. CR2 files from my 6D don't work on my version of Photoshop.

Have you updated to the latest available Camera Raw Plugin for your version?

Oops. I see that 6D is not supported by the latest version available for CS5. If you bought shortly before the release then then the upgrade was free. Also, there was an interim 5.5 release.

Using the DNG converter is your best current choice if you want to directly manipulate your RAW files in PS without going through LR, unless you want to do the $10/month subscription.

« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 09:32:17 AM by Jim O »

Logged

When people see you arguing with an idiot on the internet, all they see is two idiots arguing.

One other point that is worth mentioning is that Adobe, like any software producer, is not obligated to support old software versions ad infinitum. After a certain point in time, all software become EOL. Before that, generally only security updates are made available. CS5 was released in 2010 and CS 5.5 in 2011. CS6 was released in 2012 and CC in 2013. So if you're running CS5 it's from several versions back. At a certain point in time there simply are not going to be additional features added. The 6D was the latest Canon body until recently. I believe that CS5 versions of the Adobe Camera RAW Plugin support RAW files from the 5D3 and 1D X.

Evidently it's Canon that changes the format. Older versions of Canon's own software (DPP) won't recognize RAW files from the 6D. So blaming Adobe for the fact that Canon keeps changing format is a bit unfair... to Adobe. The DNG format is an international standard but most manufacturers, including Canon have not adopted it.

Logged

When people see you arguing with an idiot on the internet, all they see is two idiots arguing.

I for one was not at all happy about the subscription basis, but, alas, 9.99 is affordable to keep me in the game, provided they dont in a year or two jack their rates up. The other programs I use, but aren't vital in my survival as a photographer (indesign, dreamweaver, etc) I can keep my CS5 version, as long as my computer will continue to support it, or there's a new feature I cannot live without. I understand why adobe did what they did, i dont have to like it tho.

Just look at the new XBOX One. They wanted to monitor everyone and keep their machines constantly online. If your XB-ONE isn't connected to verify that you're playing and using the machine legally its practically a brick. So you pay $400 for a brick. PS4 kept gaming the same as the previous generation. All of a sudden Xbox is now taking a step back because of the backlash.

If we hold out or let adobe know we won't take this sh*t they'll do the same. However, in our world there is no Adobe competitor. Adobe bought them all out. There's GIMP but I don't think that has enough power or features.

If we hold out or let adobe know we won't take this sh*t they'll do the same. However, in our world there is no Adobe competitor. Adobe bought them all out. There's GIMP but I don't think that has enough power or features.

THIS.

Well, if enough people stay with CS6 and don't migrate, Adobe might get nervous and reconsider.Also, this give the opportunity for other players to now compete in this market. There is interest likely, in funding more professional GIMP development, with some work, it could be a contender, but like you said, it needs work.There are other companies out there even now, that are starting to do some interesting work with image manipulation, I've seen links from people talking about them, like onone.com I think it is...interesting stuff.

But as I've mentioned before, being vocal about your displeasure *is* one way to make your thoughts known, but the most powerful voice you have, is your wallet.

The bottom line for Adobe is $$,and the expectations of the market on how much they make each quarter. If in a year or so, the $$ flow isn't as anticipated, well, something will give. I don't know what yet, but I will be happily sitting with all my CS6 tools that should last me for easily 2-5 years and I'll see what the lay of the land is then.

...this gives the opportunity for other players to now compete in this market....The bottom line for Adobe is $$,and the expectations of the market on how much they make each quarter. If in a year or so, the $$ flow isn't as anticipated, well, something will give...

Time will tell if this was a huge mistake on Adobe's part. Honestly, I have to go back to the days of "New Coke" to think of a company that has done something like this – taken a successful, market-dominating product and made a significant change that alienates a large base of customers.

Obviously Adobe knows they have stumbled and they are trying to find a way to fix it without completely abandoning the Creative Cloud model (which might be just too embarrassing for them to swallow). The question is, will they be able to backtrack sufficiently to protect their market share, or are they so arrogant that they think no one can possibly compete with them?

I strongly suspect that one of the first things Google may have done after learning about this was pay a visit to Corel. With Nik they have a foothold in the market and they certainly have the financial resources to buy up Corel and develop it into a truly competitive product.

I think it is also interesting how companies that were completely dependent on Adobe have pivoted so quickly to emphasize expanded stand-alone options (onOne being a good example).

Personally, I think I'm in a good position. I've got the full CC suite locked in at $20/month for a year and I have a perpetual license for CS6 as a backup. I can wait and watch how the market shakes things out and in the meantime have access to a whole lot of programs to try out over the next year.

What are you going to use? Corel? It sucks, always has. GIMP? Always been free and full of bugs. Some smaller apps without the feature set? There is nothing comparable to PS. So use the old version you have and live with it, or fork over a few bucks a month. And when you get your next computer and it has a new OS and your old version of PS won't install, don't whine to Adobe. They may have sold you a perpetual license but they didn't promise perpetual support.

I'll wager that Adobe will stick with this arrangement going forward for five years and not back down. Businesses, who are their largest customers, like this type of arrangement.

Adobe will be quite happy selling licenses to you for LR and Elements. If you want PS, you will have to go to CC.

The only thing that might change that is if they perceive that they can make more money selling perpetual licenses for individual apps. But it's extremely doubtful that you will never see a CS7.

I doubt CS6 will refuse to work on Windows 9. And if it did I'd just dual boot back into Windows 7.By the time it won't work at all, far off, there may well be much better competition or, if we do all hold off, Adobe will be forced to retreat.

I don't know that all big institutions necessarily love it at all. Adobe already had to back track and provide the old installers for governmental and educational institution usage (so much for the talk that it was impossible to keep both the old and new CC installs going).

However, Adobe have, again as I have already said, bent over backwards to enable that 10% to keep using their current software even with new cameras (no small expenditure in itself), maintain perpetual licensing with Lightroom, and make this new photographer orientated subscription model at prices any keen hobbyist could easily afford.

I'm not sure how they're bending over backwards. I bought a copy of CS5 Extended shortly before the CS6 release. CR2 files from my 6D don't work on my version of Photoshop.

It depends how "shortly" before CS6 was released, normally Adobe offer a recent purchaser discount to upgrade. But once a version of pretty much any companies software is superseded support stops, Adobe are not unusual in that regard it is the industry norm, they didn't know when you were going to buy a new camera after all. Having said that Adobe did write a fully supported free program that allows you use CS5 and your 6D files, name me another software company that does that.

Also, if you don't like the idea or price of upgrading to CS6 or the "hassle" of the free DNG convertor then get Lightroom 5 for $99, this gives you the very latest ACR, the version above CS6, the CC version, you can then "open in CS5" and "render using Lightroom" and open every camera Adobe currently support in your legacy CS5. $99 gets you the best ACR leveraged against the power of PS.

Adobe give us photographers so many legal ways of working around any "restrictions" or "limitations" they are accused of putting in our way,they can't all be by accident, I believe they are bending over backwards to keep stuff accessible to that 10%, we are just to obtuse to see it, too often we sound like belligerent children being asked to simmer down after a tantrum in a supermarket or restaurant.

I do use Lightroom 5, purchased a few weeks ago. It will not export to CS5 as layers, only as single files.

However, Adobe have, again as I have already said, bent over backwards to enable that 10% to keep using their current software even with new cameras (no small expenditure in itself), maintain perpetual licensing with Lightroom, and make this new photographer orientated subscription model at prices any keen hobbyist could easily afford.

I'm not sure how they're bending over backwards. I bought a copy of CS5 Extended shortly before the CS6 release. CR2 files from my 6D don't work on my version of Photoshop.

Have you updated to the latest available Camera Raw Plugin for your version?

Oops. I see that 6D is not supported by the latest version available for CS5. If you bought shortly before the release then then the upgrade was free. Also, there was an interim 5.5 release.

Using the DNG converter is your best current choice if you want to directly manipulate your RAW files in PS without going through LR, unless you want to do the $10/month subscription.

Isn't DNG an Adobe product? Why would I put files in that format, when I have no idea what they're going to do with it in the future? They aren't winning a lot of friends with their business strategies.

Isn't DNG an Adobe product? Why would I put files in that format, when I have no idea what they're going to do with it in the future? They aren't winning a lot of friends with their business strategies.

The DNG format is an free and completely open format developed by Adobe, just like pdf's. Converting files to DNG does not destroy your original, you have several options, one, make a copy (this doesn't touch your original), or two, make a copy and include the original RAW file inside it (again, this doesn't touch your original).

Doing this via the free fully supported DNG convertor just means Adobe have given you the ability to use unsupported newer cameras in older software, entirely for free, without touching your original image file. Name me one other software company that does that.

There are good reasons to chastise the corporate way we seem to be racing towards, but I really don't believe Adobe deserve most of the hysteria and inaccurate hyperbole being thrown at them.

Logged

Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

Isn't DNG an Adobe product? Why would I put files in that format, when I have no idea what they're going to do with it in the future? They aren't winning a lot of friends with their business strategies.

The DNG format is an free and completely open format developed by Adobe, just like pdf's. Converting files to DNG does not destroy your original, you have several options, one, make a copy (this doesn't touch your original), or two, make a copy and include the original RAW file inside it (again, this doesn't touch your original).

Doing this via the free fully supported DNG convertor just means Adobe have given you the ability to use unsupported newer cameras in older software, entirely for free, without touching your original image file. Name me one other software company that does that.

There are good reasons to chastise the corporate way we seem to be racing towards, but I really don't believe Adobe deserve most of the hysteria and inaccurate hyperbole being thrown at them.

I think you're missing my point. If I do processing in Adobe's format (DNG), then unless I want to re-process at some point in the future when Adobe decides not to support DNG, I'm once again at their whim.

If I carry RAW and DNG in my computer, I have the above issue and eat up more of my hard drive as well.

Isn't DNG an Adobe product? Why would I put files in that format, when I have no idea what they're going to do with it in the future? They aren't winning a lot of friends with their business strategies.

The DNG format is an free and completely open format developed by Adobe, just like pdf's. Converting files to DNG does not destroy your original, you have several options, one, make a copy (this doesn't touch your original), or two, make a copy and include the original RAW file inside it (again, this doesn't touch your original).

Doing this via the free fully supported DNG convertor just means Adobe have given you the ability to use unsupported newer cameras in older software, entirely for free, without touching your original image file. Name me one other software company that does that.

There are good reasons to chastise the corporate way we seem to be racing towards, but I really don't believe Adobe deserve most of the hysteria and inaccurate hyperbole being thrown at them.

I think you're missing my point. If I do processing in Adobe's format (DNG), then unless I want to re-process at some point in the future when Adobe decides not to support DNG, I'm once again at their whim.

If I carry RAW and DNG in my computer, I have the above issue and eat up more of my hard drive as well.

I repeat my question, do you work for Adobe?

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, DNG makes it simpler for any application that implements the standard (GIMP, etc) to open up the image. However, you still need to 'develop' it if you use something like PS and don't export a final TIF/JPG/PNG, or do it in LR since LR just stores a series of actions, then only applies them when you select Export.

However, as far as I am aware, DNG is an open standard similar to how ODF is an open format, although maybe not quite as open.

Isn't DNG an Adobe product? Why would I put files in that format, when I have no idea what they're going to do with it in the future? They aren't winning a lot of friends with their business strategies.

The DNG format is an free and completely open format developed by Adobe, just like pdf's. Converting files to DNG does not destroy your original, you have several options, one, make a copy (this doesn't touch your original), or two, make a copy and include the original RAW file inside it (again, this doesn't touch your original).

Doing this via the free fully supported DNG convertor just means Adobe have given you the ability to use unsupported newer cameras in older software, entirely for free, without touching your original image file. Name me one other software company that does that.

There are good reasons to chastise the corporate way we seem to be racing towards, but I really don't believe Adobe deserve most of the hysteria and inaccurate hyperbole being thrown at them.

I think you're missing my point. If I do processing in Adobe's format (DNG), then unless I want to re-process at some point in the future when Adobe decides not to support DNG, I'm once again at their whim.

If I carry RAW and DNG in my computer, I have the above issue and eat up more of my hard drive as well.

I repeat my question, do you work for Adobe?

When did you first ask if I worked for Adobe? Don't bother, I don't, never have, never will.

I believe you are missing my point, and the capabilities Adobe have given you.

You say you have CS5 and a 6D and the RAW files will not open in your version of ACR? Here are a couple of workarounds that Adobe have left for us, but first, what format do you currently save your CS5 work in?

Download DNG Convertor, convert a copy of your RAW file to DNG, open in CS5's ACR, process, open in CS5 process. Save as-------- This is where you are being obtuse, you always have to save your PS file as something, save it to whatever you save it now, TIFF, jpeg, PSD etc etc you don't need to save as a DNG, you just need to open it as one to work your new cameras files in your older software.

Upgrade to CS6

Pay $99 to get the CC version of ACR via Lightroom 5

So, one free option that doesn't touch your RAW file, one modest cost option that vastly increases your functionality that also doesn't touch your RAW file, CC/LR5's ACR is way better than CS5's ACR, and one marginal upgrade cost that gets your 6D files open but doesn't future proof you for long and doesn't get you the best available ACR, and oh, doesn't touch your RAW file.

The only difference to your current workflow is converting a copy of your RAW file to DNG to open it in CS5's ACR, it takes no more HDD space, it doesn't touch your original RAW file and your CS5 output file s identical to your current CS5 output files. Adobe provided and support that functionality entirely free. Again, give me one example of any other software company that provides a free fully supported program that means you can continue using old versions of their software with new hardware (new, expensive, cameras that's files are only unreadable because the camera manufacturers refuse to adopt any kind of RAW standard).

As has been said, DNG is an open format, it is far more likely that future third party software will be able to read DNG's than PSD's, or even some legacy RAW files.

For the record, whilst I have tested this to see if it works as I say (it does I have copies of CS4 and CS5 on older boot drive clones) I do not use DNG's as I have no need, I went the CS6 and LR5 route as, for me, that makes far and away the most sense.

« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 12:37:33 AM by privatebydesign »

Logged

Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

Isn't DNG an Adobe product? Why would I put files in that format, when I have no idea what they're going to do with it in the future? They aren't winning a lot of friends with their business strategies.

The DNG format is an free and completely open format developed by Adobe, just like pdf's. Converting files to DNG does not destroy your original, you have several options, one, make a copy (this doesn't touch your original), or two, make a copy and include the original RAW file inside it (again, this doesn't touch your original).

Doing this via the free fully supported DNG convertor just means Adobe have given you the ability to use unsupported newer cameras in older software, entirely for free, without touching your original image file. Name me one other software company that does that.

There are good reasons to chastise the corporate way we seem to be racing towards, but I really don't believe Adobe deserve most of the hysteria and inaccurate hyperbole being thrown at them.

I think you're missing my point. If I do processing in Adobe's format (DNG), then unless I want to re-process at some point in the future when Adobe decides not to support DNG, I'm once again at their whim.

If I carry RAW and DNG in my computer, I have the above issue and eat up more of my hard drive as well.

I repeat my question, do you work for Adobe?

When did you first ask if I worked for Adobe? Don't bother, I don't, never have, never will.

I believe you are missing my point, and the capabilities Adobe have given you.

You say you have CS5 and a 6D and the RAW files will not open in your version of ACR? Here are a couple of workarounds that Adobe have left for us, but first, what format do you currently save your CS5 work in?

Download DNG Convertor, convert a copy of your RAW file to DNG, open in CS5's ACR, process, open in CS5 process. Save as-------- This is where you are being obtuse, you always have to save your PS file as something, save it to whatever you save it now, TIFF, jpeg, PSD etc etc you don't need to save as a DNG, you just need to open it as one to work your new cameras files in your older software.

Upgrade to CS6

Pay $99 to get the CC version of ACR via Lightroom 5

So, one free option that doesn't touch your RAW file, one modest cost option that vastly increases your functionality that also doesn't touch your RAW file, CC/LR5's ACR is way better than CS5's ACR, and one marginal upgrade cost that gets your 6D files open but doesn't future proof you for long and doesn't get you the best available ACR, and oh, doesn't touch your RAW file.

The only difference to your current workflow is converting a copy of your RAW file to DNG to open it in CS5's ACR, it takes no more HDD space, it doesn't touch your original RAW file and your CS5 output file s identical to your current CS5 output files. Adobe provided and support that functionality entirely free. Again, give me one example of any other software company that provides a free fully supported program that means you can continue using old versions of their software with new hardware (new, expensive, cameras that's files are only unreadable because the camera manufacturers refuse to adopt any kind of RAW standard).

As has been said, DNG is an open format, it is far more likely that future third party software will be able to read DNG's than PSD's, or even some legacy RAW files.

For the record, whilst I have tested this to see if it works as I say (it does I have copies of CS4 and CS5 on older boot drive clones) I do not use DNG's as I have no need, I went the CS6 and LR5 route as, for me, that makes far and away the most sense.

I'm replying on my very old laptop, purchased long before I purchased CS5. The Windows Vista program in this laptop surely cost a lot less than what I paid Adobe for CS5 Extended, is updated continually by Microsoft, and so far, seems to work with all programs I choose.

Regarding Adobe, as far as I know, I never use ACR except behind the scenes. With RAW images from my 7D, I import them into my Lightoom catalog, then can use "Photo- Edit In", and either open as an image, or merge to panorama, merge to HDR, open as smart object, or open as layers. Lightroom tells me this version of Lightroom (happened in both 4 and 5) may require Camera Raw plug-in 8.1, but gives me the option of "Render Using Lightroom" and I'm fine. The images open as TIFs in Photoshop.

With RAW images from the 6D, the HDR, panorama, open as smart object, and open as layers options don't give me the "Open with Lightroom" option, only offering "Open Anyway." When I click that, nothing opens in Photoshop. So far, that means I've lost the functionality of those actions, which were among the ones I used the most. I've had to export as TIF, then import the TIFs back into my catalog, and then import into CS5.....not a huge problem, but not the functionality I thought I was buying.

I'm an amateur, and not a heavy user of Photoshop, but invested a lot of time, and Lynda.com cost learning how to use the program. I haven't seen anything dramatic for my usage that says I need to update to the most recent version of Photoshop, but Adobe seems to think otherwise.